The case of Herland v. Izatt began when an intoxicated party guest picked up a loaded gun belonging to the host and accidentally shot herself in the head.

Although the host/gunowner was not the subject of criminal charges for the horrific accident, the woman's family filed civil negligence action, alleging general negligence, premises liability and negligent entrustment.

While the trial court in the case granted summary judgment to defendant, finding he owed no duty of care to his guest, the Utah Supreme Court reversed. Specifically, the high court ruled that gun owners do have a duty to exercise reasonable care in supplying a firearm to an intoxicated individual.

When a loved one is killed as a result of someone else's negligence or criminal act, a civil wrongful death case can focus at least partially on whether or how much decedent suffered prior to death.
This is often an especially painful and difficult element to address because no one wants to think about those last moments in which someone for whom they cared experienced deep distress, severe pain or great fear. Still, it may be necessary to address because courts allow for greater compensation when a person was aware and suffered greatly before death, as opposed to if the person died suddenly or had no awareness.

This has become an issue in a recent hit-and-run DUI wrongful death case in New York, where the family of an 18-year-old pizzeria worker is suing a doctor alleged to be responsible for her death. In Rice v Corasanti, the question of the victim's pre-death pain and suffering has become central, and, unfortunately, hinges on a witness who has been inconsistent with her testimony.

The best civil in the world will not be able to survive to the trial phase if the court determines there is insufficient service of process.
The reason is that service of process lays the foundation of personal jurisdiction, which refers to the court's jurisdiction over the parties involved in a civil action. Service of process is required in all lawsuits. Absent this, there can't be a valid lawsuit.

Only following plaintiff's proper service upon a defendant is jurisdiction obtained by the court over the defendant to impose and enforce judgment of liability and damages.

Service of process is the procedure by which a plaintiff in a lawsuit gives fair notice to defendant of a legal action. This enables the other party to respond before the court in the proceedings and to be an active participant.

When it comes to drunk driving prevention, Alabama gets a 5-star rating, according to the latest report from Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
This was in conjunction with another recently-released study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which indicates the state had the lowest death rate of alcohol poisoning in the country.

But it isn't time to raise a glass just yet.

Drunk-driving related fatalities are still a major problem in this state, with a June 2014 analysis ranking the state 17th highest in terms of alcohol-attributable deaths, which include drunk driving.

An insurance company providing workers' compensation coverage and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to cities (and hence, their workers) across the state pulled what many considered to be an illegal move.
As was later detailed in the case of Alabama Mutual Insurance Corp. v. City of Vernon, the city alleged in 2005 the insurer excluded city workers from collecting both workers' compensation and UM benefits in the event workers were involved in an on-the-job accident. Workers' compensation would thus be the only damages a worker could collect in the event of a serious crash. (They couldn't sue the employer, due to the exclusive remedy provision, and suing the other driver who lacked insurance would likely be fruitless.)

Vernon argued this move by the insurer was a breach of contract that effectively rendered the city's UM/UIM coverage as "illusory." The city had contracted with the insurer to provide UM/UIM benefits to injured workers. It paid for those benefits. And yet, the city didn't actually receive any coverage because the insurer cut out the only persons who had any realistic chance of collecting those benefits - city workers and volunteers.

The Alabama Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment favoring an accident victim and her husband against their insurance company for uninsured motorist benefits on grounds the order improperly relied on a default judgment against the other driver.
In Travelers v. Gray, the state high court found a default judgment against the driver who caused the crash is not binding against a plaintiff's own insurer where the firm was not listed as a defendant in the original complaint. The court relied on its previous ruling in Bailey v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. to reach its conclusion.

The court previously held that in order for both the insured and the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier to protect their rights in the course of making a claim, the plaintiff can either join his own liability insurer as a defendant in the lawsuit or give notice of the filing and the possibility of a claim at the close of trial. In cases where the insurer is named as a party, it has the right to choose whether to participate. In either case, the insurer will be bound by the court's decision on the issues of liability and damages.

The injury at the center of the recently-decided Stuhlmacher v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. didn't occur around the holidays. However, it is relevant because it involves an allegedly defective ladder. The fact is, both before and for weeks after the holiday season, people climb ladders to decorate and then "un-decorate" their homes.

It's a fact that ladders can tip regardless of their condition if they aren't used properly. However, when a ladder collapses or otherwise fails when being used properly as intended or anticipated, this may be grounds for a product liability lawsuit.

This was the case in Stuhlmacher.

Generally in order to succeed in a product liability lawsuit, one must prove not only he or she suffered injuries, but that those injuries were proximately caused by a product that was either defective or lacked proper instructions or warnings. One must also show the product was being used more or less in the manner intended.

Here, according to court records, the issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was that of causation, as posited by a plaintiff expert witness, whose testimony was stricken from the record by the trial judge. Without that testimony, causation could not be proven. The federal appellate court reversed, finding the testimony qualified as relevant under Civil Rule 702, so long as it helps the jury in determining any fact at issue in the case. Specifically, expert witnesses are allowed to put forth alternative models to explain their conclusions, the court ruled.

Bicycling in Montgomery has gained speed in recent years, with the area boasting some 1,380 miles of trails specifically for biking. In addition, numerous events, races and club rides are organized every year, with many participants choosing to make cycling part of their everyday commute, exercise or recreation. Montgomery is an ideal place for this year-round, given our great climate.
Cyclists must be sure, however, to follow the rules of the road. This is true everywhere, but it's especially true in Alabama, where liability of a motor vehicle driver who collides with a cyclist will be eliminated if the cyclist shares any percentage of fault.

Alabama is one of just five states in the country that follows the "pure contributory negligence" system in civil courts. Per the rulings issued by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ala. Power Co. v. Schotz in 1968 and John Cowly & Bros., Inc. v. Brown in 1990, a plaintiff making a claim based on negligence will lose entitlement to damages if plaintiff is at all negligent.

The trauma of losing a loved one as a result of negligence can be compounded when there is a dispute regarding who may be named personal representative of decedent's estate.
The question is a crucial one because while multiple people may be dependents or have standing to collect on a wrongful death claim, only one person can file claim - and that's the personal representative. This person must be named to this position before litigation can proceed.

In Robert Bosch LLC v. Smith et al., justices were asked whether a trial court erred in requiring defendant air bag manufacturer to submit a series of internal records deemed trade secrets as part of discovery.

Defendant appealed that decision, arguing it should not be forced to turn over information that could be damaging to the company. Plaintiff argued trial court did not err in its ruling and the need to prevent disclosure does not outweigh the benefit of disclosing what should be considered relevant evidence.

Evidence is the crux of any legal case. The truth, of course, is of paramount importance, but what is also key is what can be proven. Without the right amount and type of evidence, a case will go no where.
This is as true for personal injury cases as it is for those involving crimes.

Because certain evidence can be considered critical to a case, and those with vested interest in not having that evidence presented may be in possession of it for a time. The courts have long recognized the importance of sanctions for loss or destruction of evidence - regardless of whether it was intentional. When important evidence is lost, it's called spoliation. By imposing sanctions for spoliation of evidence, the court provides incentive to protect key evidence that may be helpful to the opposing side.

Sanctions can include anything from a special instruction to the jury to a default judgment on the issue of liability or damages. It can result in the party disadvantaged by the loss of evidence winning the case.

It seemed like a relatively straightforward case: A school bus driver, working for a private contractor, rear-ended a woman in a vehicle, pushing that driver into another vehicle, causing some damage to the vehicle and, allegedly, injury to that driver.
When the driver who was struck later filed a lawsuit for injuries sustained in the crash, defendant school bus company admitted to liability in Peterson-Tuell v. First Student Transp., LLC. There was really nothing to argue in that regard, as the bus driver was clearly at fault in proceeding when the light turned green without making sure traffic ahead had started to move.

That meant the only thing left to decide was the issue of damages. The injured driver asked for $3 million, saying a traumatic brain injury stemming from the crash rendered her unable to work. The company offered to pay her $95,000, arguing her injuries were psychosomatic. In the end, a jury granted the woman even less, $65,000.

Railway crashes and accidents result in hundreds of deaths each year, according to the Federal Railway Administration, which reported a total of 1,734 train accidents in 2012.

In comparison to the enormous carnage seen on America's roadways involving solely motor vehicles (causing an estimated 33,000 deaths annually), it might seem a minor problem. However, 700 deaths in a single year - 2012 - is cause for concern. That's only slightly fewer than the number of people killed in recreational boating incidents, so it warrants the attention of motorists.

Just recently in Alabama, a 27-year-old former contestant on the hit show "Survivor" was killed in Birmingham while working as a conductor when an axle on one of the cars derailed and he was thrown into another car in the yard.

A truck driver, reportedly distracted by his cell phone, has been held liable for injuries sustained by two men who were struck by the driver while traveling U.S. Highway 31 near Birmingham.

According to media reports, a man and his nephew sustained severe injuries as a result of the collision, including rib fractures, broken facial bones, a brain bleed and surgery to remove a spleen.

Following a recent five-day trial, a jury in Jefferson County Circuit Court ordered the driver to pay $525,000 collectively to both men for causing the crash.

This figure might seem somewhat high, but the reality is, costs for crash injuries can add up quickly when one factors emergency care, long-term medical bills, therapies, lost wages, property damage and disabling conditions that may prevent a return to work. A recent AAA study found the average cost of an injury crash is $126,000. Meanwhile, the cost of an average traffic fatality is about $6 million.

Determination of jurisdiction and venue are important considerations in any personal injury lawsuit. It's not always a straightforward issue, particularly if litigants are from different states or there is a question of federal law.
For the most part, injury lawsuits stemming from car accidents and truck accidents are going to fall under the purview of state courts. However, a court has to have personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction before it can hear a case. That means either the defendant resides in that district or it is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to the claim occurred.

If a lawsuit is filed in the wrong venue, the court will likely dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning you can file again. Sometimes, the court will transfer the case to the proper district, but only if it's "in the interest of justice." However, if the case is dismissed, the time spent in the wrong court consumes valuable time that could count against you in terms of the statute of limitations on your case.